Is even half of this true? Cause if it is how can the USA even call itself a "democracy" or a rep

Wrabbit2000
The United States is NOT a Democracy. It never HAS been a Democracy and it just grates to hear the utter ignorance of people I know have taken their
PLS requirements to know better, still calling it something it is not.

Democracy would be direct voting for leaders and laws by the people ...and we'd be a nation ruled almost entirely from the leading 13-15 metro areas
by population and amassed political power among those areas alone.

What we have is a representative Republic, which sounds like a distinction without a difference to some, but it's a DRAMATIC difference. So, the
points the OP article points to as weakness are what I think actually give the system it's strength. It's a messy thing at times, but then, England
has had far worse history for what happens when Monarchy goes sideways and the King turns out to be a Sadist.

And how can a system be anywere near fair if only 2 partys can dominate the senate and lock out other partys. Why bother voteing? Why dont just give
senators there positions for life and let there children take over from there jobs? (which seems to happen in some areas anyway).

The gerrymandering of House districts and the lack of a really viable third (or more) parties is grating, but our Senate - with its career politicos -
seems to be like the House of Lords. Granted, that's from my extremely simplistic point of view and base of knowledge, so forgive me if I have that
misconstrued.

Exactly. The USA population seem to be like sheep at the mercy of thier huge faceless bureaucratic goverment with little hope of voteing change.

The whole developed could reform but if the USA doesnt its useless.

Maybe it time to get those guns out?

edit on 15-11-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

And this is exactly why the people of other nations complaining to us, the citizens of the US, to butt out is useless. Its not as if the US government
does what we want them to do anyways.

Only in rare cases, such as the threat of war with Syria, do most of the sleeping masses here wake up and make themselves heard. The rest of the time
the majority have their heads in the sand watching E! and other crap TV.

Changing our Senators to elected and not appointed positions of 6 years per term was the worst idea they ever came up with, IMO. The House on short,
rotating 2 year terms has half that part of the Government up for removal or support as it may be, every 2nd year.

At least the Senators were appointed by people with shorter terms than they had at the state's level and who were easier to show disapproval with by
local political action. Now it's just another office to buy with airtime to an apathetic public that barely jerks awake every 4 years to notice a
President is up for election. This next one may change that for numbers tho.... It would be nice to see more than 50% or so of registered voters even
show up on average.

In Canada, the same ridiculous aspect applies. Senators are appointed by a sitting government and the idea is to stuff as many partisan(s) in there as
possible in the hopes of stacking the deck for votes. For ironic purposes, they call it the 'Chamber of Sober Second Thought', but when the current
party in power appoints a record number of like-minded senators of any sitting government in Canadian history, not a grumble is heard.

Now that a few of those appointees have been turfed for questionable practices (read feeding at the trough), the sitting government wants to abolish
the Senate altogether and has gone to the Supreme Court in the attempt.

BobM88
The gerrymandering of House districts and the lack of a really viable third (or more) parties is grating, but our Senate - with its career politicos -
seems to be like the House of Lords. Granted, that's from my extremely simplistic point of view and base of knowledge, so forgive me if I have that
misconstrued.

The question that needs to be asked is why is it that, within the US alone, there is perception or perhaps actuality that there is no viable third
party. To the best of my knowledge, it is only within the US that we are seeming locked into just two parties. My conclusion after trying to
identify the source of this issue is that gerrymandering, ballot access rules, the media fostered perceptions that to vote for a third party is a
"wasted vote" (that was really pushed when Nader ran years ago, can't remember which election), and more would be the source of this non-viable
third party view. Other sources would include the high cost of campaigns resulting in an imbalance in "air time" or even quality, the tendency for
voters to vote in incumbents, and the lack of voter participation and increase in voter disenfranchisement, too.

I'm sure if we tried hard we could come up with a few ideas worse than direct voting of Senators,

but I do agree with you on that.

Politics has become, IMHO, a hobby/game of the rich. Both to further enrich themselves and for the simple egoism involved. Since they are already
rich, or at the least have rich friends to support their candidacy, they're more after the rush of power. Just MHO.

There may be a politician out there that isn't an egotistical person, but I can't think of one off the top of my head. There are very few
"commoners" that can afford to run for office. There are exceptions, of course, but even they will have "generous backers".

If I tried to run for a House seat, what am I going to do? Get flyers printed at Kinkos? *Maybe" get a radio or local cable ad? There's no way a
person like me can compete and I don't think that, the House at least, was meant to be a forum for the creation of a new class in American society
when the nation was founded.

I think that there's not been a viable third party in actuality since the Civil War. I'm going by memory so....and, yes, I know there was a Bull
Moose party and the "No Nothings", etc; but the keyword is viable.

IIRC, Nader ran in both 1996 and 2000. It was in 2000 especially that he was castigated for having peeled off voters from Gore, and treated as if he
had no right to run and it was his fault that Gore ended up losing. Rarely do you see a mention of the simple fact that if Gore had carried his own
home state he'd have one, even without Florida. Anyways...I am NOT trying to derail the thread with that mess. I just found it offensive back then
that Nader was despised for having the nerve to run for President.

The closest we've come, IMHO, was Ross Perot. Of course, being as rich as Croesus, he could afford to compete.

The idea of a unified North America regularly surfaces in icy Canada via certain politicos and pundits. Even as recently as 2013…

And, yes… our so-called democracy lies in tattered ruin imho. What the outcome will be is anyone's guess, but I think it is being eerily presaged
in the City Hall of our largest city Toronto. The rot exists at all three levels of government. I could go on at length about specific details, but
I'd rather not bore anyone with the turbulent details of corruption in high places here.

Let it suffice that I see how poorly the British Parliamentary System we have here in Canada does and how it has nothing much to brag about when
compared to Obama's America (which I consider quite broken as well).

I read your link and that OPINION piece was so simplistic and full of half truths I don't even know where to begin. I don't start threads complaining
about British politics for a couple of reasons.

1. I don't care

2. It's none of my business and

3. I clean up my own yard before looking over my neighbor's fence.

Why don't you try giving any/all three of those a whirl?

edit on 15-11-2013 by Carreau because: (no reason given)

Why do you seem to be having some kind of knee-jerk reaction and getting all bent out of shape? You do realize this "OPINION piece" as you call it,
was written by an American right?

So are you honestly trying to say that because OP is not an american, he has no right to share with us an article, about our country, written by one
of our countrymen?

Well, I'm a US citizen, and I happened to read this article last night, and I was thinking of sharing it, as well. So it very well may have ended up
here one way or another, so you can lay off OP, as your anger seems not only unnecessary, but mis-placed.

The fact is, the system IS rigged. It's rigged really bad, it's been rigged for a long time, and I've understood this since I was a
child. And because of that, I'd honestly question the intelligence or sincerity or motives of anyone who suggested otherwise.

I may have more to say on this article later, but I just wanted to clear that up.

Yep, that's what I recall happening with Nader but wasn't certain if it was Gore as I recollect other issues being pointed to as to the reason of
Gore's not gaining presidency.

Dismissing something like the Bull Moose (aka Progressive) Party as not being viable is a little asinine when they did actually have an individual
receive a greater number of votes than one of the two parties--Roosevelt. I agree with you, however, that the Civil War had a stratifying effect on
the political system in the creation of the two party system. However, Roosevelt's contention for presidency as a Third Party candidate indicates
that it was not as rigid as it is today. By 1918, they rejoined the Republican fold so they basically "gave up" in my opinion. Just a few years
later in 1920, you would've started seeing media influence kicking in with the development of radio programming. I sometimes wonder how much that
also worked to solidify the two party system.

Ross Perot is yet another example of a third party contender faring very well and yes, it probably had a lot to do with his money. His money provided
him with a lot of air time. Whereas I think that the issues definitely started back in the Civil War, how we got to this point today would be the two
parties basically using their positions to influence both who was in the Supreme Court and what laws could be passed. They're not going to create
laws that damage their political strength nor are they going to admit Supreme Court judges that would do the same. When attempts have been made to
try to control the issues within the election process, it's always been the Supreme Court that shoots it down.

crazyewok
I know its a comedy site but wanted to check? Link
This artical seems to point out how rigid and set in stone your system seems to be. By the look of it voteing is everything but rigged in the
states

Is it really this bad? If so WTF! I you guess you guys are doomed. There doesnt seem to be any point of voteing.

Should the USA really be trumpeting to the world how its the "home" of Democracy and the "Land of the free" when ut people seem to be little
better off politcally than if it was a single party system?

By the way I know the USA is not a deomcracy. But your politicans seem to like to call it that.
But even as a republic it seem to be a broken system were voting wont make a inch of diffrence.

edit on 15-11-2013 by crazyewok because: (no
reason given)

edit on 15-11-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

Well all I can say is I will take my flawed democracy over anything out there, especially a bunch of drunk old rich royal farts standing around a pit
yelling obscenities at each other lol. I mean your not seriously gonna set here and complain about our democracy lol.

Yes we have flaws but it is not as bad as everyone makes it to be. It still works we just have to elect the right people. We can change things,
we need strong third party with enough votes in Congress to force the other two to compromise. It is no where near as bad as you make it.

Is every law perfect, no, there is always someone who disagree and on the other side of every law. Our laws work all across this country everyday.
No it is not perfect but I sure would not want to be anywhere else.

For all you haters your more than welcome to go live with the OP in UK, you can bow to the new king soon lol.

Well all I can say is I will take my flawed democracy over anything out there, especially a bunch of drunk old rich royal farts standing around a pit
yelling obscenities at each other lol.

Well apart from royal that what you have? A bunch of drunk rich farts yelling at each other

I mean look at yiu congress there mostlu rich and
mostly insane!

dlbott
I mean your not seriously gonna set here and complain about our democracy lol.

No cause you dont have a democarcy. You have a repuclic, which is maybe why its so screwed up as its trying to be what its not?

dlbott
Yes we have flaws but it is not as bad as everyone makes it to be. It still works we just have to elect the right people.

Well according to gerrmandering that makes it almost impossible as the borders are fixed to the advantage of certain partys.

dlbott
We can change things, we need strong third party with enough votes in Congress to force the other two to compromise. It is no where near as bad as
you make it.

O I agree, But the whole system seems rigged by the major two so that they can crush any 3rd party before it even gets ton the voteing booths.

dlbott

For all you haters your more than welcome to go live with the OP in UK, you can bow to the new king soon lol.

You do know the UK monachy has no power and there is no law that says you have to bow. Hell I can even say the queen is a usless old hag, there are
just there for show nothing more. Hell the queens not even allowd a political opinion!

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.